In “Scorched Earth”, an episode of Law and Order: Special Victims Unit, a hotel maid accuses Robert DiStasio, an Italian diplomat, of rape. There is a significant amount of evidence that matches Robert and the maid, Miriam Deng, identifies the diplomat in a lineup. However, Deng’s credibility is weakened when a tape arises of her saying she did it for money, when she was convicted of prostitution two years before, and when a witness says he advised her to fabricate a gang-rape. The jury could not decide a verdict for the rape charge, but of unlawful imprisonment, and will probably spend a year in prison. (Wolf & Slovis, 2001)
In the beginning, the Captain, head of the department Donald Cragen sent Detective Olivia Benson to meet the victim at the
…show more content…
hospital. I believe the captain sent Olivia because during cases like rape it is more comfortable for the victim to talk to a detective of the same sex.
(Siegel & Worrall, 2015) Olivia is a main character in the show, which is not reflective of women in policing in the real world. According to Siegel and Worrall (2015), only about 13 percent of officers are female and many do not gain a lot of power easily. (Siegel & Worrall, 2015) During the investigation, there was no warrant issued to search the room of Robert DiStasio. In the real world that would violate the 4th amendment that protects people against unlawful searches and seizures. (Siegel & Worrall, 2015) During the arrest, two detectives arrested him aboard an airplane and the audience was never shown the diplomat being read his rights. The Miranda Warning should’ve been read to the defendant because he was in custody of the police. (Siegel & Worrall, 2015) The state courts were to decide if they had jurisdiction for this case, since the defendant was an Italian diplomat, and because the defendant’s lawyer claimed diplomatic immunity. The defendant was arrested while on an airplane leaving the country, so the prosecution tried to say he was a flight risk, so no bail
should be permitted. However, the defense went to an appellate court about it and was granted bail. The arraignment is where the defendant enters a plea in reality. However, the arraignment was mixed into the trial. The trial followed along the 6th amendment, which includes trial by jury and cross-examining witnesses. (Siegel & Worrall, 2015) The victim was a previous felon in another country, and lied on federal documentation about it. According to Siegel and Worrall (2015), a felony is a crime punishable by over a year in prison. (Siegel & Worrall, 2015) In the show’s end, the jury could not reach a decision about rape charge. According to Siegel and Worrall (2015), when the jury does not reach a decision it is called a hung jury. (Siegel & Worrall, 2015) These processes happened within the hour that the show was on, but in real life, it would’ve taken weeks, maybe months, to go through them. During the course of the episode, there were many elements for this course that were included in the episode. However, the television show did not always reflect things that actually go into the criminal trial process. References Siegel, L., & Worrall, J. (2015). Essentials of Criminal Justice (9th ed.). Stamford, Connecticut: Cengage Learning. Wolf, D. (Writer), and Slovis, M. (Director). (2011, September 21). Scorched Earth [Television series episode]. In Law and Order: Special Victims Unit. New York City, New York: National Broadcasting Company.
Defenders of the Miranda decision say that fewer crimes solved are for a good reason. They believe that law enforcement officers were forced to stop coercive questioning techniques that are unconstitutional. Over the years, the Supreme Court has watered down its stance in saying that the Miranda rules are not constitutional obligations, but rather “prophylactic” safeguards intended to insure that officers do not force a confession from a suspect. The need for both effective law enforcement as well as protection of society dictates the need for potential alternatives to the limitations of Miranda that would simultaneously protect the interest of society in effective law enforcement while at the same time providing protection to suspects against unconstitutional force (www.ncpa.org).
After arriving at Miss Mapp’s residence and failed to gain permission to enter the residence the three Cleveland police officers should have gone to the DA and retrieved a real search warrant. The fact that they tried to pass off a piece of paper as a search warrant is useless and everything that they find cannot be used against her in court. All of the paraphernalia regarding the bombing that they found is useless because of the pursuant search warrant. Because Miss Mapp did not answer the door when they came back they forced their way into the house and conducted an illegal search. When Miss Mapp’s attorney arrived the police officers would not let the attorney into the house. When Miss Mapp grabbed the purported search warrant the police officers struggled with her to retrieve it and did. Miss Mapp was then placed under arrest as the police conducted a widespread search of the residence wherein obscene materials were found in a trunk in the basement. Miss Mapp was convicted of possessing these material...
On May 23rd 1957, three police officers representing Cleveland Ohio came to the door of Miss Mapp’s residence with the suspicion of a bombing suspect hiding out in her home. Miss Mapp and her daughter lived in a two family two story home. Upon their arrival at the house the police knocked on the door and demanded entrance from Miss Mapp. However Miss Mapp didn’t open the door and instead asked them to provide a search warrant after she called her attorney. The officers advised their headquarters of the situation and established surveillance of the home over the next few hours. The officers once again sought entrance three hours later when they forced open one of the doors to the home and went inside. It was around this time that miss mapp’s attorney arrived and witnessed the police officers enter the home. In their continued defiance of the law they did not allow Miss Mapp to see her attorney. At one point when the officers entered the hall Miss Mapp stopped them and demanded to see their search warrant. One officer held up a slip of paper claiming it to be a search warrant and Miss Mapp immediately grabbed it and stuck it in her bra. The officers wrestled Mapp to the ground and made her relinquish the paper through a struggle. The police then handcuffed her because she was being “belligerent”. The officers then escorted her upstairs and began searching through her drawers and belongings, even though they were looking for a bombing suspect. The police also looked at her photo albums and some of her personal papers. The search spread throughout the house. It’s possible that during this time they found who they believed was the bomber Virgil Ogletree inside the home. He said that he was there delivering laundry as he owned a dry cle...
To avoid being arrested for a Mann Act violation, both Victoria Price and Ruby Bates accused the Scottsboro Boys of raping them while aboard the train. Although both women accused the Scottsboro Boys, Ruby Bates recanted her story of the rape, and eventually, served as a witness for the defense. Victoria Price, however, refused to recant her story (“Trials of Scottsboro Boys”). Price’s testimony was inconsistent and evasive. She used ignorance and bad memory to avoid answering difficult questions.
In order to incriminate Danial Williams, Joseph Dick, Eric Wilson, and Derek Tice with the rape and murder of Michelle Moore-Bosko, Detectives Maureen Evans and Robert Ford conducted long, grueling interrogation sessions using many provocative and manipulative tactics. Throughout this process, Ford and Evans coerced the suspects into renegotiating their perception of the crime until an entirely new reality was created. This new reality evolved as the police elicited additional confessionary evidence to account for each new piece of physical evidence from the crime scene. Eventually, in an iterative process that had police editing their theories of the crime and then forcing the suspects to claim this new reality as their own, the reconciled reality of the crime became one that was consistent with both the criminal evidence and the suspects’ new perception. An analysis of empirical m...
...e police officers. Miranda established the precedent that a citizen has a right to be informed of his or her rights before the police attempt to violate them with the intent that the warnings erase the inherent coercion of the situation. The Court's violation of this precedent is especially puzzling due to this case's many similarities to Miranda.
For years police corruption has been a major problem in American society but where is the line between moral and unethical police corruption, many modern movies address this vary issue. Some films portray how types of police corruption can have a positive influence on society, while others show the dark side of police corruption. Many law enforcement agents join the criminal justice with the basic idea of “justice for all,” however, most of them do not realize that the nice guy doesn’t always win. Even though there are vast amounts of movies which specifically address police corruption we will use three main movies for our argument today, mostly LA Confidential, however, also Training Day.
This is exactly what happened to the wife of Bennett Barbour, when Bennett was 22-years-old he was accused of the rape of two women that were sexually assaulted at gunpoint on February 7, 1978. The victims described their attacker as a man who was 5’6” tall and 145 pounds. Within a week one of the victims picked Bennett out of a photo array and two live lineups. All three times the victim chose Bennett. At the time, Bennett was 115 pounds and he had suffered from a brittle-bone disease and had a pin in his elbow which would have made it difficult for him to commit the rape. There were hair and semen found at the scene that didn’t belong to Bennett, which proved his innocence, yet he was still arrested for the crime. Unfortunately, the eyewitness testimony trumped all the evidence that supported the fact that he was not the attacker. Regardless of all the evidence and the alibi he had provided he was convicted of the crime and sentenced to 10 years in prisons. However, Bennett served 35 years in prison and was not released from prison until May 24, 2012, when he was cleared of the rape.
Taylor, N. 2007. ‘Juror attitudes and biases in sexual assault cases’, Trends and issues in crime and criminal justice, no. 344. Australian Institute of Criminology.
In 1966, American police procedure was changed by what is known today as the Miranda Rights. In 1963, Ernesto Miranda, a twenty three year old Hispanic American with an eighth grade education was arrested for kidnap and rape. (Paddock) He was identified by the victim of the crime in a police lineup. After he was identified, he was taken into police interrogation for two hours. When he was arrested, he was not informed of his Fifth Amendment right to not incriminate himself. He was also not informed of his Sixth Amendment right to have the assistance of an attorney. In the first part of his interrogation, Miranda denied having any involvement in the crime, but after two hours he confessed to the crime in writing. (Street Law)
"Know the Cases." Innocence Project. Benjamin N. Cardozo School of Law, n.d. Web. 1 Mar 2011. .
Over the years the way law enforcement officers have been able to investigate cases has been drastically changed over the years. Investigations used to be a very prying, and vindictive matter. Now it is very delicate. Since the Miranda case, law enforcement has been very open and aware of defendants’ rights.
One contradiction in the job of the prosecutor is that they have nearly limitless direction in critical matters; however, prosecutors’ are also held to a very high ethical standard. Prosecutors must screen cases to determine which ones need to be prosecuted; nevertheless, this is the source of controversy with most people. “What makes charging decisions more intriguing and controversial is the fact that in making this decision, the prosecutor has nearly limitless discretion” (Hemmens, Brody, & Spohn, 2013). This means the prosecutor’s charging decisions are beyond any judicial review, so it must be apparent that a prosecutor
How could she, his wife, betray him and kill him with no remorse? The article, “Trial Lawyers Cater to Jurors’ Demands for Visual Evidence,” written by Sylvia Hsieh, stresses the importance of visual evidence. Hsieh writes in a formal tone as she delves into a pool of various example trials used to explain visual evidence, along with specific quotes obtained from well-known lawyers and workers in the industry. This simply states the recurring idea that visual evidence is important.
Police decisions can affect life, liberty, and property, and as guardians of the interests of the public, police must maintain high standards of integrity. Police discretion concerning how to act in a given situation can often lead to ethical misconduct (Banks 29).